Astorga v Villegas

G.R. No. L-23475 April 30, 1974

Related Topic: Legislative Department, When to be consulted.

Facts:
 The present controversy revolves around the passage of House Bill No. 9266, which became
Republic Act 4065, "An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the
City of Manila, Further Amending for the Purpose Sections Ten and Eleven of Republic Act
Numbered 409, as amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila."
 In 1964, Antonio Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to the department heads
and chiefs of offices of the city government as well as to the owners, operators and/or
managers of business establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of Republic Act
No. 4065. He likewise issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall five members of the city
police force who had been assigned to then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga (assigned under
authority of RA 4065).
 Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. He then filed a petition for
“Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory
Injunction” to compel Villegas et al and the members of the municipal board to comply with
the provisions of RA 4065 (filed with the SC).
 In his defense, Villegas denied recognition of RA 4065 (An Act Defining the Powers, Rights
and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila) because the said law was considered to
have never been enacted. When the this said “law” passed the 3rd reading in the lower
house as House Bill No. 9266, it was sent to the Senate which referred it to the Committee
on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by then Senator Roxas. Some
minor amendments were made before the bill was referred back to the Senate floor for
deliberations. During such deliberations, Sen. Tolentino made significant amendments which
were subsequently approved by the Senate. The bill was then sent back to the lower house
and was thereafter approved by the latter. The bill was sent to the President for approval and
it became RA 4065. It was later found out however that the copy signed by the Senate
President, sent to the lower house for approval and sent to the President for signing was the
wrong version. It was in fact the version that had no amendments thereto. It was not the
version as amended by Tolentino and as validly approved by the Senate. Due to this fact, the
Senate president and the President of the Philippines withdrew and invalidated their
signatures that they affixed on the said law.
 Astorga maintains that the RA is still valid and binding and that the withdrawal of the
concerned signatures does not invalidate the statute. Astorga further maintains that the
attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill’s due enactment.

Issue: W/N RA 4065 was validly enacted.

Held: No, RA 4065 is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law.

The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution
requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the risks of
misprinting and other errors, the journal can be looked upon in this case. The SC is merely asked to
inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the President was the same text passed by
both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the SC can do
this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose. The journal discloses that substantial and
lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not
incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and signed by him. Note however that the SC is
not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged law but only to declare that the bill was
not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. As done by both the President of the Senate
and the Chief Executive, when they withdrew their signatures therein, the SC also declares that the
bill intended to be as it is supposed to be was never made into law. To perpetuate that error by
disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become law would be to
sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making
body.

Additional Note:
The rationale of the enrolled bill theory is set forth in the said case of Field vs. Clark as follows:
The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, by the President of
the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two
houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two
houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has
received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and
that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills
which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested,
receives his approval, and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a
bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the
President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in
the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the
President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the
legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with
the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The
respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department
to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills
authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question
properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution.